What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#376

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2019, 16:27

France fell on June 25 . Felix became a possible option in October,when it was obvious that the LW had lost the Battle of Britain and that Britain would continue the war .Hitler himself said that it would take at least 3, not 2, months to attack Gibraltar, IF Franco agreed . If Franco refused, Felix was impossible .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#377

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2019, 16:36

glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 16:05
ljadw wrote:
10 Dec 2019, 20:22
And the claim that they could conquer and occupy French NA is totally ridiculous : it took the French more than 40 years to conquer Algeria and 22 years to conquer Morocco .Besides: why would the Germans wast their forces by occupying French NA ?
The overall pattern of these discussions seems to be that Germany can't impose its will in France, or Spain or North Africa, or Turkey, in 1940/41 because of various forms of pixie dust. You estimate Spain would take 25 divisions and a few months. Yes, and so what? The Axis had over 200 divisions available and years.

Germany had NO 200 divisions in 1940 and it had never years,as time was running against Germany .The invasion of Spain would immobilize the main part of the German army and LW and would make Barbarossa impossible .And an invasion of Spain would not force Britain to give upo .


glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#378

Post by glenn239 » 11 Dec 2019, 17:34

pugsville wrote:
10 Dec 2019, 21:25
Because the Vichy regime would certainly not agree to it, Occupation would likely lead to collapse of the armistice with France in the colonies if not in metropolitan France . There were some 120,000 French troops in French North Africa, admittedly not that well equipped by a large force. Throwing Vichy Syria into the allied camp.
France and the fall of France, and Germany's decisions about France, and France's attitudes and expectations, are some of the most intangible, dynamic and fascinating aspects of WW2. What exactly was the potential of Franco-German relations from June 1940 assuming someone more competent than Hitler was calling the shots in Berlin? For example, you mention that there were 120,000 French troops in North Africa. Well, that's also because Germany wanted those troops there to protect that territory against the British and Americans while Hitler dove head first into the wood chipper that was Russia. You indicate that Syria might go Allied if Germany demands military transit rights in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Will it? You don't really know that's right. I don't really know that's wrong. What we do know is that the device of Vichy France proved a strategic catastrophe for the Axis in the Med from late 1942 onwards.
But what would taking Gibraltar actually achieve?
1. Allows the union of the Axis fleets for combined arms operations in the Atlantic against the UK's SLOC, operations along the west coast of Africa, or Sealion.
2. Effectively prevents any Allied sea operations into the Western Med, southern France, or Italy, until at least '44. The fall of Gibraltar therefore effectively protects Italy's place in the Axis alliance for the foreseeable future.
3. Allows the Axis - and the French navy - sea trade with the Americas.
4. Contributes to the fall of Malta, therefore, the threat to Egypt.
5. Directly threatens British SLOC from the UK to Egypt.
Last edited by glenn239 on 11 Dec 2019, 17:38, edited 1 time in total.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#379

Post by glenn239 » 11 Dec 2019, 17:35

ljadw wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 16:36
Germany had NO 200 divisions in 1940 and it had never years,as time was running against Germany .The invasion of Spain would immobilize the main part of the German army and LW and would make Barbarossa impossible .And an invasion of Spain would not force Britain to give upo .
Germany and Italy did not have 200 divisions in 1940? Pretty sure they did.

The invasion of Spain would require the main part of the German army? You yourself just said 25 divisions.

An invasion of Spain would make Germany's committing suicide in Russia impossible? Why yes, yes it might.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#380

Post by ljadw » 11 Dec 2019, 21:44

I did not say that the invasion of Spain would require 25 divisions,it would be much more,but that the occupation of Spain would require at least 25 divisions.
The strength of the Italian army was irrelevant,as most of it was tied in Italy .
An invasion of Spain could not force Britain to give up : the only thing that remained after the failure of the Battle of Britain was Barbarossa . All the rest was a wast of time and resources .And a successful Barbarossa (suucessful not only that it would cause the defeat of the SU but also the surrender of Britain ) was only possible in 1941,and only if the SU was defeated after a few weeks .

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#381

Post by pugsville » 11 Dec 2019, 23:37

glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34

France and the fall of France, and Germany's decisions about France, and France's attitudes and expectations, are some of the most intangible, dynamic and fascinating aspects of WW2. What exactly was the potential of Franco-German relations from June 1940 assuming someone more competent than Hitler was calling the shots in Berlin? For example, you mention that there were 120,000 French troops in North Africa. Well, that's also because Germany wanted those troops there to protect that territory against the British and Americans while Hitler dove head first into the wood chipper that was Russia. You indicate that Syria might go Allied if Germany demands military transit rights in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Will it? You don't really know that's right. I don't really know that's wrong. What we do know is that the device of Vichy France proved a strategic catastrophe for the Axis in the Med from late 1942 onwards.
My response was to occupation of French North Africa not Transit. Vichy control over Vichy areas is the essential component of the cease ifre agreement with France. Occupation of any part of French North Africa calls the funametal nature of that agreement.

glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34
1. Allows the union of the Axis fleets for combined arms operations in the Atlantic against the UK's SLOC, operations along the west coast of Africa, or Sealion.
It does not. The British would still have a fleet control egress of surface ships from the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy still had overwhelming advantage in strength. They could sail on the British seas only at immense risk. The Italian Navy was very short legged and not very suitable for Atlantic operations.
glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34
2. Effectively prevents any Allied sea operations into the Western Med, southern France, or Italy, until at least '44. The fall of Gibraltar therefore effectively protects Italy's place in the Axis alliance for the foreseeable future.
II does that, but there is no guarantees that' lasts till 44.,
glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34
3. Allows the Axis - and the French navy - sea trade with the Americas.
It does not. The French already had trade with the Americas. But solely what the British would allow (though subject to occasional losses to U boats). With Bases in the Canaries and Azores teh Royal is still quite capable of stopping that.
glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34
4. Contributes to the fall of Malta, therefore, the threat to Egypt.
Malta is certainly much harder to hold, very much harder. But the Fall of Malta in no way threatens Egypt,

glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 17:34
5. Directly threatens British SLOC from the UK to Egypt.
It does not.

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#382

Post by glenn239 » 11 Dec 2019, 23:57

ljadw wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 21:44
I did not say that the invasion of Spain would require 25 divisions,it would be much more,but that the occupation of Spain would require at least 25 divisions.
You said,

they had first to conquer and occupy Spain, which would last months and absorb at least 25 divisions .

25 seems about right, but by August or September 1940 no doubt the Germans alone could have thrown 50 at it. They had 100 divisions in France and the French army had just collapsed with the entire French rail net completely intact.

Hitler's decisions in the months between June 1940 and December 1940 were a strategic calamity of the first magnitude for Germany, the greatest gift for us in the West. The failure to take Gibraltar and resolve the question of Spain's part in the war was one of these incredible mistakes Hitler made. The root cause seems the same as the failure to attempt Sealion - a predisposition to turning East in a rush.
The strength of the Italian army was irrelevant,as most of it was tied in Italy .
Hardly. If Iberia had been occupied the Italians would no doubt form part of the garrison of occupation. Since Spain is far outside the radius of land based airpower in the UK, it's quite likely that it would not be invaded.
An invasion of Spain could not force Britain to give up : the only thing that remained after the failure of the Battle of Britain was Barbarossa
. All the rest was a wast of time and resources .And a successful Barbarossa (suucessful not only that it would cause the defeat of the SU but also the surrender of Britain ) was only possible in 1941,and only if the SU was defeated after a few weeks .
For Germany, all paths into the Soviet Union were the path to defeat.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#383

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Dec 2019, 02:20

JAG13 wrote:Germany couldnt wage a 2 year war against the USSR, they expected to run out of fuel
Uhhhh.... You might be forgetting the length of the war on Eastern Front.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#384

Post by ljadw » 12 Dec 2019, 08:14

glenn239 wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 23:57
ljadw wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 21:44
I did not say that the invasion of Spain would require 25 divisions,it would be much more,but that the occupation of Spain would require at least 25 divisions.
You said,

they had first to conquer and occupy Spain, which would last months and absorb at least 25 divisions .

25 seems about right, but by August or September 1940 no doubt the Germans alone could have thrown 50 at it. They had 100 divisions in France and the French army had just collapsed with the entire French rail net completely intact.

Hitler's decisions in the months between June 1940 and December 1940 were a strategic calamity of the first magnitude for Germany, the greatest gift for us in the West. The failure to take Gibraltar and resolve the question of Spain's part in the war was one of these incredible mistakes Hitler made. The root cause seems the same as the failure to attempt Sealion - a predisposition to turning East in a rush.
The strength of the Italian army was irrelevant,as most of it was tied in Italy .
Hardly. If Iberia had been occupied the Italians would no doubt form part of the garrison of occupation. Since Spain is far outside the radius of land based airpower in the UK, it's quite likely that it would not be invaded.
An invasion of Spain could not force Britain to give up : the only thing that remained after the failure of the Battle of Britain was Barbarossa
. All the rest was a wast of time and resources .And a successful Barbarossa (suucessful not only that it would cause the defeat of the SU but also the surrender of Britain ) was only possible in 1941,and only if the SU was defeated after a few weeks .
For Germany, all paths into the Soviet Union were the path to defeat.
The French railway net was mostly destroyed at the end of June 1940 and it was even not connected to the Spanish railway net ( also mostly destroyed ) because the Spanish railway net had a different gauge .Other points : even with an operational Spanish and French railway net,there were only 5 railway crossings at the border ,which means that it was impossible to supply an army that was invading Spain . And you forget very conveniently the distances : Cologne -Gibraltar is farther than Cologne -Moscow: more than 2400 km. It would take a train carrying only 400 tons of Supplies almost two months to go to Gibraltar and to return to Cologne .

User avatar
JAG13
Member
Posts: 689
Joined: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#385

Post by JAG13 » 12 Dec 2019, 18:34

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 02:20
JAG13 wrote:Germany couldnt wage a 2 year war against the USSR, they expected to run out of fuel
Uhhhh.... You might be forgetting the length of the war on Eastern Front.
That was THEIR expectation at the start of Barbarossa, THEY indeed turned out to be wrong in that regard, maybe you are forgetting that?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#386

Post by glenn239 » 12 Dec 2019, 19:35

ljadw wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 08:14
The French railway net was mostly destroyed at the end of June 1940 and it was even not connected to the Spanish railway net ( also mostly destroyed ) because the Spanish railway net had a different gauge .Other points : even with an operational Spanish and French railway net,there were only 5 railway crossings at the border ,which means that it was impossible to supply an army that was invading Spain . And you forget very conveniently the distances : Cologne -Gibraltar is farther than Cologne -Moscow: more than 2400 km. It would take a train carrying only 400 tons of Supplies almost two months to go to Gibraltar and to return to Cologne .
I see no references to the French rail network being "mostly destroyed" by June 1940. 350 railway tunnels and bridges destroyed in total (requiring repair), but the big effect for France was apparently in the massive requisition of French engines and rolling stock.

I see no basis for your conclusion that units in Spain would rely solely on rail supply during the occupation of the country. Rail, truck, and sea supply would all factor into it. I also don't know what calculations you're using for the capacity of the 5 crossings you mention.

I do not understand your calculation of a 4,800km round trip taking 1440 hours. That translates into a train speed (average) of 3.3km/hr. Trains in WW2 moved at over 25km/hr, did they not?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#387

Post by glenn239 » 12 Dec 2019, 20:16

pugsville wrote:
11 Dec 2019, 23:37
My response was to occupation of French North Africa not Transit. Vichy control over Vichy areas is the essential component of the cease ifre agreement with France. Occupation of any part of French North Africa calls the fundametal nature of that agreement.
Pugsville, the net sum of the narrative to my mind is that the British strategy in WW2 collapsed in Belgium in May 1940, and everything afterwards until the German invasion of Russia was an improvised house of cards relying on various degrees of bluff and distance, but of no real substance in the longer term had the Axis been less inclined to commit the rank stupidity of Barbarossa.

That being said, I think that what happened was that Hitler was incompetent and offered the French an armistice too quickly, forgetting in June 1940 all about basic possibilities such as need for shipping transit rights via Tunisia to Libya. Did Hitler even seek consultation from Italian and German government agencies before having the terms of the armistice drafted?
It does not. The British would still have a fleet control egress of surface ships from the Mediterranean. The Royal Navy still had overwhelming advantage in strength. They could sail on the British seas only at immense risk. The Italian Navy was very short legged and not very suitable for Atlantic operations.
The stronger the RN was in Egypt, the weaker the RN would in the Atlantic and Home Waters. Ships can't be in two places at once - any RN ships in the Atlantic can't reach Egypt for weeks around the Horn of Africa, and vice versa. The distance from Gibraltar to Malta is about the same as the distance from Egypt to Malta. So the Axis fleets would be as close to the fighting in the Med near Italy as the RN is in Egypt. The difference is that an Axis fleet at Gibraltar could operate at Malta as easily as it can go after SLOC in the Atlantic or move to France to participate in Sealion. A battleship that can strike easily into three theatres from one central location has to be covered by a British battleship in each threatened location. Ergo, the possession of Gibraltar as a major fleet base by the Axis would be a nightmare for the RN.

It does not. The French already had trade with the Americas. But solely what the British would allow (though subject to occasional losses to U boats). With Bases in the Canaries and Azores teh Royal is still quite capable of stopping that.
The British used their position at Gibraltar to impose controls on French imports from the Americas. If the Germans control Gibraltar, it gets somewhat more difficult for the British to use Gibraltar to impose controls on the French. In terms of the island chains you mention, I can see the British having the need and strength to secure the Azores, but the Canaries? IMO, the Canaries go Axis unless the Americans come into the war.

Malta is certainly much harder to hold, very much harder. But the Fall of Malta in no way threatens Egypt,
The fall of Malta does not threaten the British in Egypt?
It does not.
What's the SLOC to Egypt other than to pass by Gibraltar at some distance?

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Banned
Posts: 3255
Joined: 15 Jan 2019, 23:32
Location: USA

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#388

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 12 Dec 2019, 20:17

JAG13 wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 18:34
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 02:20
JAG13 wrote:Germany couldnt wage a 2 year war against the USSR, they expected to run out of fuel
Uhhhh.... You might be forgetting the length of the war on Eastern Front.
That was THEIR expectation at the start of Barbarossa, THEY indeed turned out to be wrong in that regard, maybe you are forgetting that?
Provide one shred of evidence that the reason Germany planned an X-week Barbarossa campaign is they'd run out of fuel in week X+1.
https://twitter.com/themarcksplan
https://www.reddit.com/r/AxisHistoryForum/
https://medium.com/counterfactualww2
"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war depends on the Russians." - FDR, June 1942

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15588
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#389

Post by ljadw » 12 Dec 2019, 22:03

glenn239 wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 19:35
ljadw wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 08:14
The French railway net was mostly destroyed at the end of June 1940 and it was even not connected to the Spanish railway net ( also mostly destroyed ) because the Spanish railway net had a different gauge .Other points : even with an operational Spanish and French railway net,there were only 5 railway crossings at the border ,which means that it was impossible to supply an army that was invading Spain . And you forget very conveniently the distances : Cologne -Gibraltar is farther than Cologne -Moscow: more than 2400 km. It would take a train carrying only 400 tons of Supplies almost two months to go to Gibraltar and to return to Cologne .
I see no references to the French rail network being "mostly destroyed" by June 1940. 350 railway tunnels and bridges destroyed in total (requiring repair), but the big effect for France was apparently in the massive requisition of French engines and rolling stock.

I see no basis for your conclusion that units in Spain would rely solely on rail supply during the occupation of the country. Rail, truck, and sea supply would all factor into it. I also don't know what calculations you're using for the capacity of the 5 crossings you mention.

I do not understand your calculation of a 4,800km round trip taking 1440 hours. That translates into a train speed (average) of 3.3km/hr. Trains in WW2 moved at over 25km/hr, did they not?
Trains moved at 20 km per hour, but the number of hours and thus km that they operated was very limited. Trains did not move at night, they had to stop to take coal and water,a lot of German and Spanish railway roads were single track : the different gauge of French and Spanish railways would result in the loss of enormous time : how much time is needed to unload 400 or more tons from a German train to a French train ? Not hours, but days .
The Spanish railways could not transport the German heavy artillery and it is very doubtful that this artillery could be transported on the small Spanish roads .
The situation of the Spanish railways was that bad that Franco was too late for his meeting with Hitler in Hendaye,and that Hitler had to wait several hours .
Source : the Spanish Government and the Axis .
If Franco refused : no Felix .
If Franco agreed ,the Germans would not only need forces for Gibraltar, but also forces to invade Portugal as Britain would/could invade Portugal and the Spanish Army could not prevent this . MOre than 100000 men would be needed and the Spanish railwaysa could not supply them .

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: What if Hitler made fighting Britain a serious consideration from the start..

#390

Post by glenn239 » 12 Dec 2019, 23:13

ljadw wrote:
12 Dec 2019, 22:03
Trains moved at 20 km per hour, but the number of hours and thus km that they operated was very limited. Trains did not move at night, they had to stop to take coal and water,a lot of German and Spanish railway roads were single track : the different gauge of French and Spanish railways would result in the loss of enormous time : how much time is needed to unload 400 or more tons from a German train to a French train ? Not hours, but days .
The Spanish railways could not transport the German heavy artillery and it is very doubtful that this artillery could be transported on the small Spanish roads .
The situation of the Spanish railways was that bad that Franco was too late for his meeting with Hitler in Hendaye,and that Hitler had to wait several hours .
Source : the Spanish Government and the Axis .
If Franco refused : no Felix .
If Franco agreed ,the Germans would not only need forces for Gibraltar, but also forces to invade Portugal as Britain would/could invade Portugal and the Spanish Army could not prevent this . MOre than 100000 men would be needed and the Spanish railwaysa could not supply them .
Still waiting for your citation on the claim that the French rail network was mostly destroyed in June 1940. Now I would also like citations for your claims that German trains moved at 20km and only during the day.

Now your next idea is that Britain might invade Portugal in response to a German move into Spain? You're kidding, right?

Locked

Return to “What if”